He was tried at centre for a run of games last season, he looked a million miles off, in attack and more evidently in defence. The role is massively different. Reminded me of how Pat Richards was when tried at centre.

I don't get this obsession with moving Burgess to centre. (I know it's not you mate) It's like someone's looked at his size and pace, saw his hand off and breaks v Cas, factored in that we have Davies and Marshall and come to a conclusion he could be a centre.

It's as if people don't get how different the positions are.

Of course we get that the positions have differences! I'd say more defensively than in attack. If you think he'd struggle at centre in attack you need only take a look at Friday. He attacked through the centre channels, beating the opposition centre with a man outside him (you know.. like a winger!) and on both occasions showed the awareness to set up his winger (sic) to score! This was against one of the top sides in the league generally noted for their tight defence. This is far from the first time he's shown such awareness in setting up others for tries. What part of the blindingly obvious are you struggling with there?

As for defense, I agree he hasn't shown the same natural propensity for the position but in mitigation we've only seen him at this level in an injury ravaged team with inexperience outside him. As has been said many times about bringing youngsters into the team, it's a completely different proposition when there is a full team of experienced players around you. The same argument is equally applicable to positional switches.

I am certainly not advocating a move now but, down the line, a simple look at our playing roster would suggest it's something worth looking at. You could argue that people's obsession with not considering positional changes, even when it would plainly benefit the club, is the unfathomable one.

Of course we get that the positions have differences! I'd say more defensively than in attack. If you think he'd struggle at centre in attack you need only take a look at Friday. He attacked through the centre channels, beating the opposition centre with a man outside him (you know.. like a winger!) and on both occasions showed the awareness to set up his winger (sic) to score! This was against one of the top sides in the league generally noted for their tight defence. This is far from the first time he's shown such awareness in setting up others for tries. What part of the blindingly obvious are you struggling with there?

As for defense, I agree he hasn't shown the same natural propensity for the position but in mitigation we've only seen him at this level in an injury ravaged team with inexperience outside him. As has been said many times about bringing youngsters into the team, it's a completely different proposition when there is a full team of experienced players around you. The same argument is equally applicable to positional switches.

I am certainly not advocating a move now but, down the line, a simple look at our playing roster would suggest it's something worth looking at. You could argue that people's obsession with not considering positional changes, even when it would plainly benefit the club, is the unfathomable one.

It's worrying how you watched the game on Friday and from that came to the conclusion that Burgess could be a good centre. The highlights of his tries could be attributed to centre play, I get that, from his position and how he dealt with Webster was it? But a 10 second snapshot falls very short in comparison to his spell, game after game of watching him at centre. You mention how the skills of a centre in attack, these are a million miles away from that of a winger, how you're positioned, ball skills the lot.

And for defence, you mention he had an inexperienced winger outside him, that winger was Marshall, who do you think would be playing outside of him if you moved him into the centres? That same winger.

I'm not against positional play, but only if it makes sense. Trying to covert our best winger to a centre doesn't.

Wakefield complain about the size of Castleford pitch and what do they do bring in Wigan must really have some grudge against us.

Wigan Warriors play on a field that is not legal according to RL laws. They play on a ground measuring 105 metres which according to the RL law should be a maximum of 100 metres, with a 6 metre in goal area behind the posts.The minimum requirements are 94 metres between posts, Castleford play on an legal pitch, and always cheating Wigan play on an illegal pitch. Will Eddie or his mates ever pick up on this.

Wakefield complain about the size of Castleford pitch and what do they do bring in Wigan must really have some grudge against us.

Wigan Warriors play on a field that is not legal according to RL laws. They play on a ground measuring 105 metres which according to the RL law should be a maximum of 100 metres, with a 6 metre in goal area behind the posts.The minimum requirements are 94 metres between posts, Castleford play on an legal pitch, and always cheating Wigan play on an illegal pitch. Will Eddie or his mates ever pick up on this.

By ‘Wakefield’ do you mean one of their supporters or the club itself. Assuming the second paragraph is a quote I’d be very concerned over the language used.

Interesting point though, I can’t be bothered to look up the RFL rules however on google maps the distance between the posts does measure 104.95m. So assuming the above is correct and the maximum length is 100m then we are indeed over.

By ‘Wakefield’ do you mean one of their supporters or the club itself. Assuming the second paragraph is a quote I’d be very concerned over the language used.

Interesting point though, I can’t be bothered to look up the RFL rules however on google maps the distance between the posts does measure 104.95m. So assuming the above is correct and the maximum length is 100m then we are indeed over.

To be fair, although legal, the Castleford pitch is laughably small.

I was thinking "No wonder Gale kicks loads of 40/20s". We kick way fewer, but the pitch we play on is huge in comparison to Castleford's.

By ‘Wakefield’ do you mean one of their supporters or the club itself. Assuming the second paragraph is a quote I’d be very concerned over the language used.

Interesting point though, I can’t be bothered to look up the RFL rules however on google maps the distance between the posts does measure 104.95m. So assuming the above is correct and the maximum length is 100m then we are indeed over.

Ive had this argument with the other half and as i constantly tell her, its not the length its the width that matters....

By ‘Wakefield’ do you mean one of their supporters or the club itself. Assuming the second paragraph is a quote I’d be very concerned over the language used.

Interesting point though, I can’t be bothered to look up the RFL rules however on google maps the distance between the posts does measure 104.95m. So assuming the above is correct and the maximum length is 100m then we are indeed over.

I was a on the Castleford forum and one of there Castleford supporters was on the Wakefield forum and on there they were complaining how short there pitch was, so he fetched Wigan in to the argument which I think was unfair back onto the Cas forum.

It's worrying how you watched the game on Friday and from that came to the conclusion that Burgess could be a good centre. The highlights of his tries could be attributed to centre play, I get that, from his position and how he dealt with Webster was it? But a 10 second snapshot falls very short in comparison to his spell, game after game of watching him at centre. You mention how the skills of a centre in attack, these are a million miles away from that of a winger, how you're positioned, ball skills the lot.

And for defence, you mention he had an inexperienced winger outside him, that winger was Marshall, who do you think would be playing outside of him if you moved him into the centres? That same winger.

I'm not against positional play, but only if it makes sense. Trying to covert our best winger to a centre doesn't.

Well it isn't based on a 10 second snapshot as I've said previously and the winger outside him (if he played on the left) would be a Marshall in his third season as a Superleague regular, not the inexperienced one in his first few games as he was when he played outside Budgie last season. Other than that, you're bang on!

Well it isn't based on a 10 second snapshot as I've said previously and the winger outside him (if he played on the left) would be a Marshall in his third season as a Superleague regular, not the inexperienced one in his first few games as he was when he played outside Budgie last season. Other than that, you're bang on!

Let's agree to differ on thus one. Time will tell who was right.

I just hope the club has some sense and doesn't try to convert our best winger into a centre and play a lesser wing outside him. (Basically that would leave us with a poor to average centre in Burgess with a lesser winger outside him)

He's a brainwave, sign a centre, play our best winger outside a proper centre.

By ‘Wakefield’ do you mean one of their supporters or the club itself. Assuming the second paragraph is a quote I’d be very concerned over the language used.

Interesting point though, I can’t be bothered to look up the RFL rules however on google maps the distance between the posts does measure 104.95m. So assuming the above is correct and the maximum length is 100m then we are indeed over.

i think that is the dimensions for the football pitch for latics. look at the markings on friday.the goal lines for the football and rugby dont match

Quick Reply

All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or it's subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.

RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.